list_livetv_epg_countries

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint, which is mildly useful but does not disclose behavior like return volume, ordering, or whether the list is localized. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two lines with zero waste: the purpose sentence is front-loaded before the endpoint reference. It is appropriately terse for a zero-parameter read-only tool, though it verges on under-specification rather than model conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a trivial zero-parameter list call with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely adequate. However, it lacks any context about what the countries represent (EPG guide countries), when an agent should call it, and how it relates to the many sibling EPG tools, which limits selection confidence.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The schema is an empty object and nothing needs to be explained; the description correctly implies no inputs are required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource — "Get all countries" — and reinforces it with the exact endpoint. It is clear and unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not differentiate from sibling EPG tools like list_livetv_epg_languages beyond the resource name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_livetv_epg_languages, get_livetv_epg_countries_by_country_by_epg_id_regions, or list_livetv_epg_guide. The description gives no context about the EPG workflow or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.